ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-52

Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-52

Ottawa, 30 August 2002

Bell Canada - Customer Name and Address

Reference: 8651-C12-01/01

In this decision, the Commission decides not to revoke Item 2175 of Bell Canada's General Tariff, Customer Name and Address, and directs Bell Canada to issue amended tariff pages removing the provision relating to the disclosure of confidential information to law enforcement agencies pursuant to a search warrant or other judicial authorization.

Background

In CRTC denies TELUS application to provide subscriber information to law enforcement agencies, Order CRTC 2000-676, 21 July 2000 (Order 2000-676), the Commission denied a tariff proposed by TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) that would have allowed TCI to provide confidential subscriber information to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) pursuant to a court order. The tariff would have also allowed LEAs to obtain non-confidential reverse directory information with respect to a customer's name and address associated with a specific telephone number or a customer's name and telephone number associated with a specific civic address. In reaching this decision, the Commission noted its previous determination in Denied tariff for reverse directory service, Order CRTC 2000-253, 31 March 2000 (Order 2000-253) where it denied, in light of privacy concerns, a proposal by TCI and TELUS Communications (Edmonton) Inc. to expand their directory assistance services to permit them to provide listed name and address information when provided with a telephone number by a subscriber.

Bell Canada's General Tariff Item 2175

By letter dated 28 July 2000, the Commission gave Bell Canada an opportunity to show cause why, in light of Order 2000-676, General Tariff Item 2175, Customer Name and Address (Item 2175) should not be revoked.

Item 2175 is a service available to LEAs and governmental agencies empowered to obtain search warrants or other similar judicial authorizations. The service provides LEAs with the customer name and address information associated with a specific telephone number or with the customer name and telephone number associated with a specific civic address (reverse directory information). Unlisted name and address information (confidential information) is only provided in response to a search warrant or similar judicial authorization.

Bell Canada responded to the Commission's letter on 25 August 2000. By letter dated 26 September 2000, parties to the proceeding that led to Order 2000-676 were invited to provide comments on Bell Canada's response.

In addition to the comments from Bell Canada, the Commission received comments opposing the revocation of Item 2175 from the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police (AACP), the Calgary Police Service, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Edmonton Police Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Toronto Police Service, and TCI.

The Commission did not receive any comment in support of the revocation.

Position of the parties

Bell Canada

Bell Canada opposed the revocation of Item 2175, submitting that there are substantial differences between the service provided pursuant to Item 2175 and the service rejected in Order 2000-253. Bell Canada noted that, the service denied in Order 2000-253 would have provided access to listed name and address information on the basis of a telephone number to virtually anyone.

Bell Canada argued that the Commission should balance the public interest objectives served by LEAs in the performance of their duties against the privacy concerns the Commission sought to address in Order 2000-253. Bell Canada further argued that restricting the availability of the service to LEAs and other government agencies that have the power to obtain search warrants and similar judicial authorizations is a significant privacy safeguard.

Bell Canada noted that it is becoming increasingly simple for anyone to obtain the information that would have been provided by the service denied in Order 2000-253. It further noted that an order to withdraw Item 2175 would effectively deny the LEAs access to information that is available on the Internet to anyone. Bell Canada argued that, by giving LEAs access to its non-confidential name and address information, it is protecting privacy by providing LEAs with a research tool that minimizes the risk of mistakes or errors.

Other parties

TCI submitted that the Commission should not revoke Item 2175 and that it should also favourably consider tariff notices from other regulated carriers for similar service for LEAs elsewhere in Canada.

TCI stated that it does not consider that providing LEAs with publicly available information based on phone number or service address raises any privacy concerns. TCI stated that additional public policy benefits would result from providing LEAs with a more accurate version of this information than would otherwise be available to LEAs from other sources.

TCI argued that the withdrawal of Item 2175 would force LEAs to seek court orders to obtain non-confidential, reverse directory information from Bell Canada.

The LEAs supported the comments submitted by Bell Canada. The RCMP and CSIS and the Calgary Police Service submitted that, in the personal information provisions of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which came into force on 1 January 2001, Parliament provided express authority to disclose personal information to the RCMP, CSIS and other government institutions, without a person's consent, as long as specific criteria are met.

The Calgary Police Service noted that police agencies in Canada have had long-standing warrantless access to reverse directory information. It submitted that, in recent years, federal and provincial privacy regimes have been enacted in Canada to safeguard and limit the use of information gathered by law enforcement agencies, and noted that these regimes also recognize the legitimate interests of law enforcement.

The Calgary Police Service argued that access to personal information by law enforcement agencies raises different privacy issues when compared to the sharing of personal information with the public at large. The Calgary Police Service further argued that warrantless access to reverse directory information is an indispensable source of information for police investigations and inquiries and that these would be adversely affected if law enforcement agencies were restricted to access this information only pursuant to a warrant.

Commission analysis and determination

The Commission notes that the comments received from parties in the proceeding that led to the denial of TCI's proposed tariff in Order 2000-676 focused on the disclosure of confidential information pursuant to a court order. The issues raised in that proceeding primarily related to whether there were compelling policy reasons for the Commission to assume jurisdiction to regulate such activities and whether the provision of confidential information in response to a court order involves a telecommunications service as defined under the Telecommunications Act (the Act). The comments received in the current proceeding, however, addressed in detail the issues surrounding the disclosure, pursuant to Item 2175, of non-confidential information to LEAs.

The Commission agrees that warrantless access to non-confidential reverse directory information is an important and indispensible source of information for police investigations and inquiries. Given that the information in question is non-confidential, the Commission is of the view that, on balance, the value to LEAs of non-confidential reverse directory information in the performance of their duties outweighs the privacy concerns in providing the information.

With respect to the provision of confidential information pursuant to Item 2175, the Commission finds, consistent with its finding in Order 2000-676, that there is no compelling telecommunications policy reason for it to assume jurisdiction over the provision of confidential information to LEAs pursuant to a warrant or other judicial authorization. In the absence of a compelling policy rationale for the regulation of these activities under the Act, the Commission also finds that this aspect of the service is not a telecommunications service within the meaning of the Act.

In light of the above, the Commission concludes that it will not revoke Item 2175 of Bell Canada's General Tariff.

The Commission, however, directs Bell Canada to issue amended tariff pages, within 30 days from the date of this decision, removing the provision relating to the disclosure of confidential information to law enforcement agencies pursuant to a search warrant or other judicial authorization.